The environmentalists need to learn to quit when they achieve "good enough".
And that point will be reached when all emissions are accounted for. There's no good reason why that can't be the case, heat aside. And even heat emissions should be managed.
Please inform me of how you intent to break several laws of physics. It is impossible to make a power station without having a heat sink and dumping the heat somewhere. This is thermodynamics 101. Likewise, capturing ALL the emissions would require more energy than the power station creates!
If you are thinking about carbon capture- don't. Nobody has proved it on a large scale. The largest projects I have heard of divert a tiny (~1-5) percentage of the exhaust gas from a test (small) power station. All the major OEMs have lots of trouble even with this small proof of concept, and no meaningful advancements have been made in years. From my point of view, carbon capture is a ruse to get governments to funnel truckloads of cash to utilities and equipment manufacturers. Carbon capture carries a huge parasitic loss, an inefficiency which if applied on a large scale would wastefully use up even more fossil fuels.